Pages

28 September 2011

We've all heard that the Palestinian bid for full United Nations membership has to go to the Security Council first. We also all know that the United States has threatened to veto this bid.

What is a disturbing footnote to this story is that the US is attempting to avoid using it's veto power.

However, officials in both Israel and in Washington have affirmed that the U.S. was hard at work to prevent itself the possible embarrassment of being forced to use its veto power in order to thwart the Palestinian vote, by attempting to assemble enough council members to either vote against the proposal or abstain as to make the veto unnecessary.

Why is the United States trying to avoid using their veto? Perhaps they are trying to keep the Arab world happy with them by not throwing their wholehearted support behind Israel? But then again, wasn't the "Arab Spring" all about replacing totalitarian dictatorships with "freedom" and "democracy"? Shouldn't the Arab world show their appreciation to the United States for bringing those basic concepts to the world at large?

Rather, what we see is the United States' public face turning away from the principles that have made us great. We see a fearful stance - trying to have it both ways - keeping the Arab world happy by attempting not to use their veto, and keeping the Israelis happy by stating their support for the Jewish state.

Where is the United States' clear support for an ally of 60+ years? Words are cheap. Statements of support are easy to make. The US should be clear that they are vetoing this Palestinian bid without any attempt to find a way out of it.

Since when has the United States become a "follower" rather than a "leader" in the moral-relativity zone known as the United Nations? The US has been the moral compass of the world for years and now it seems that our needle is broken. We're willing to relinquish that leadership role.

Is this where we're headed? Is the US the same as every other two-bit nation that holds a seat at the United Nations? Are we no longer the power that we once were - too afraid of Arab and world "opinion" to do the right thing?

22 September 2011

Everyone is in a tizzy over the Palestinian bid for United Nations' recognition of "Palestine" as a member state. Will they go through with the bid? Won't they? Can the United States stop them? Should they?

What no one is doing is challenging the Palestinian claim to the lands known as the "West Bank" - or in fact their claim to 'peoplehood'. The only thing being challenged is the timing and the road being taken to statehood. "Palestinian" legitimacy is being assumed... and we know where assuming takes us.

The idea that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an old one - centuries or millenia old is a pure fiction... but is repeated over and over again.

Let's take a few moments to get our facts straight.

Where does the name "Palestine" come from?
In 135 AD, the Roman Empire attempted to break the strong connection the Jewish People had with the Land of Israel by renaming the area "Palestine" after the Philistines that had lived in the area during Biblical times.

The Philistines were a Greek-like people, not Arabs like the "Palestinians" like to claim. The Philistines disappeared from the area by the 1st Century AD.

Ever since the Romans renamed the area - the name "Palestine" stuck. Jews and Arabs were both referred to as "Palestinians".

The "Palestine Mandate" given to the British after the First World War to administer included both what are now the countries of Jordan and Israel.

In 1922, Great Britain broke off 80% of the Palestine Mandate and gave it to the Hussein family - creating the country of Jordan. The Palestinians living in that area became Jordanians.

The rest of Palestine - what is now Israel - was then to be divided by the United Nations in 1947 into two states - Arab and Jewish. The Jews said 'yes' to the idea, and the Arabs said 'no'.

Israel declared independence in May 1948. The Jewish Palestinians then became Israelis. The Arabs in Israel had the option of becoming citizens of the Jewish state - some did and some did not. Those that did became Israelis. Those that did not kept the denomination of "Palestinian".

What needs to be understood is that these "Palestinians" are Arabs with no special claims to the Land. They chose not to be part of Jordan or Israel. There is no longer "Palestine" on the map. It is either Jordan or Israel - to claim a 'Palestinian' state is disingenuous. There was never an historical Palestine to claim.

The "Palestinian People" are a creation - a way of delegitimizing the Jewish claim to Israel. If, as they claim, the Palestinians were there first, then any Jews living in the land must be "occupiers" and do not belong there. We first see the "Palestinians" in 1964 when Yasser Arafat created the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), a terrorist organization with the goal of destroying Israel. (Please note that the PLO was established before the 1967 war in which Israel captured the "West Bank" and Gaza Strip - not in response to the so-called occupation.)

That these "people" are refugees is a joke. They chose not to become citizens of either Jordan or Israel. During 1948 these Arabs left their homes in response to the invading Arab armies telling them that they'd be allowed to return after the Jews had been driven into the sea.

It's 60+ years later and they're still sitting in camps bemoaning their fate. Who's fault is it? Saudi Arabia and the oil rich Arab countries are unable to take in and care for their brothers? Guess so - but it clearly shows that the Palestinians are there as willing pawns in the battle against Israel.

The accepted wisdom is that since the "Palestinians" occupy the same land as the Jews we must have negotiations to settle our differences - creating a two state solution. But why?

The "Palestinians" are an historical fiction. They are a tool of the Arab world, which has never accepted a Jewish presence, to destroy Israel. It's time to challenge the legitimacy of the "Palestinians" as a 'people' and certainly their right to a state at Israel's expense.

16 September 2011

Sergeant Meyer is the very best of the United States. The chaplain who prayed at the beginning and at the end of the ceremony did an amazing job sanctifying what our soldiers do every day. Giving thanks to G-d and showing gratitude for the gift of freedom is something that dates back to our Founding Fathers. I am proud of our Armed Forces and the sacrifices they make for the values of this country.

08 September 2011

I was a bit surprised as I watched the Republican debate last night. I had come to watch with certain expectations and was disappointed.

I was hoping that Rick Perry would blow me away, say something that would impress me. He didn't. I liked what he said about capital punishment in Texas but that was about it.

Rick Santorum, as a friend said, we forgot he was there.

I like Michele Bachmann but I like governors more.

Mitt Romney actually came out ahead of the debate. I don't think he's a real solid conservative on all issues, but on the other hand what we need now is a businessman. (That's why I also like Herman Cain). Romney's being concrete in his ideas and has put his plans out for all to see.

RomneyCare in Massachusetts bothers me, but on the other hand - that's the beauty of federalism. States have the right to experiment. Solutions do not have to come from the federal/national government. Every state is different, their needs are different from one another. It's up to each state to find what works best for them. It would be good for Romney to come out clearly and say this.

So we'll see what happens now. There's another debate September 22nd and I'm looking forward to it.

05 September 2011

The stunt President Obama tried to pull last week requesting to speak to Congress on the same night as the Republican debate was obnoxious but shouldn't surprise us.

When House Speaker Boehner graciously said "no" due to technical difficulties and offered him a different night, the talking heads called it "unprecedented" that Obama was turned down.

What is truly "unprecedented" is how this president holds anyone who holds ideas other than his own in open contempt. We've seen this contempt not only this last week but also throughout his presidency. Jonathan Alter, of Newsweek, quotes Obama calling the Tea Party the pejorative term 'tea-baggers'.

Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

He went on to apologize without a real apology.

Obama initially reacted to the resultant media firestorm over the weekend by trying to stand by his comments. But he later apologised, saying: "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."

He didn't regret what he had said, he regretted the way he "worded things".

Watching Press Secretary Carney last week explain away how the President chose September 7th showed the contempt by describing the debate as "one of many" that's on "one channel of many".

All of this is obnoxious and playing petty political games. While it is true that the President is of one of the political parties - he is also supposed to be the President of all Americans. By attempting to schedule yet another one of his speeches during the Republican debate he showed us how much he really cares about those little people who would be forced to choose between him and those Republicans who are vying for his job.

Not that I find David Letterman funny, I don't. But it looks like he's offended the Muslims .
The new threat comes from a frequen...

Humpty Dumpty Sat on a Wall

"Don't you think you'd be safer down on the ground?"

"What tremendously easy riddles you ask!" Humpty Dumpty growled out. "Of course I don't think so! Why, if ever I did fall off - which there's no chance of - but if I did ---" Here he pursed up his lips, and looked so solemn and grand that Alice could hardly help laughing. "If I did fall," he went on, "the King has promised me - ah, you may turn pale, if you like! You didn't think I was going to say that, did you? The King has promised me - with his very own mouth - to - to ---"